Richard Dawkins.

[Agayek]

Last post here for a few hours as I have to get back to work, we're clearly never going to agree though, so whatever.

Yes, it does have a bearing on things. You'd have to stick your head in the sand to not see that some people have certain social agendas based on their religion.

Furthermore it is irrelevant whether it has any bearing on something. That does not lower the standards of evidence.

And lastly, just saying 'metaphysics' doesn't make it valid. That is not how validity works.

What someone chooses to believe has absolutely no bearing on anything aside from what they choose to believe.

How they choose to act has very significant effects on others, but belief is a fully separate thing. I'll get into that later in this post.

And you're right, throwing a word around doesn't make an argument valid, but I don't think you grasp the fundamental point I'm trying to get at. Whatever a religious person believes, it is literally "meta-physical", literally "above physics". There is no concrete, physical basis to be proven or disproven. It's fundamentally incompatible with such concepts. Because of that, both conclusions are equally valid.

In other words you're going to persist in your lack of integrity. You should quit it because it shows you lack integrity to keep repeating points that have nothing to do with what I said. I never said they had no right to it. It's as if I started repeating "Women have a right not to be raped" to everything you said.

How does my statement have any bearing on my integrity? You're the one who brought it up in the first place. You attacked the fact that others hold a different opinion from yours. There's really nothing else to it. They drew a different conclusion than you did, you then proceeded to start raving about how wrong they are for doing so. My point was that if they wanted to believe in an invisible ball of flying noodles that creates gravity by pushing down on us with His Noodly Apendages, that is their right. It has no bearing on you. As long as they have examined their beliefs and found sufficient reason to believe it, you have no grounds to criticize them for it.

Objectively false since people act on it.

I'll get into more detail on this later.

OMG. Can you fucking stop for a second and read what I actually write? Because it seems that you have the absurd delusion that I am telling someone they cannot believe in it. OMFG you're annoying.

Because, and this might seem like a shock, YOU FUCKING ARE.

"Oh god, you're so incredibly wrong!" is exactly the same as saying "Oh god, you can't believe this shit!". You are quite literally saying that your viewpoint is the only valid one, and it's an utterly ludicrous stance to take.

Utter nonsense. If you want me to support the statement feel free to provide your own first.

That is nonsense. Behavior should be based on beliefs.

Belief in a religion is a personal choice involving examining the available evidence and coming to a conclusion you can live with.

Behavior is an external choice wherein one makes a decision and performs an act.

Your behavior is not defined by your religion, just like your beliefs are not defined by your behavior. Some of the most heinous and/or vicious killers in the last several decades were devout holy men, while several millions of atheists live good, productive, meaningful lives. The opposite is equally true.

It all comes down to the person and the choices they make. Religion can factor into it, just like logic, emotion and the time of the fucking month can factor into it. Holding up religion as a scapegoat for behavior devalues everything about humanity. The fact of the matter is, people make choices and act upon them. That person's religious beliefs are no more responsible than that person's upbringing, social status, or breakfast.

There are plenty of people, especially in the US, who think their religion is the only possible option, and because of that, they try to enforce their beliefs on everyone.

This is exactly as wrong as trying to force everyone to not believe.

People have the right and obligation to make their own decisions on such topics. Trying to force either one is one of the most heinous things a person can do.

Edit: For the sake of increased clarity, I shall try to make a short summary of the gist of my arguments:

People are allowed to believe illogical things. If you don't agree, too fucking bad. No one is any more right because no one can be proven to be right. It's a personal choice of theirs, and it affects no one but themselves. Get the fuck off their nuts.

 

[Agayek]

Oh, and Agayek, you reading Sociology at Uni by any chance?

Nah, I got my Computer Science degree and got out of there. School's way too dull.

I happen to enjoy debating religion though. I'm just weird in that I enjoy challenging my held beliefs and seeing where they fall short. Because of that, I've heard just about every religious theory out there, which has influenced my stance on the whole thing quite a bit.

 

[Agayek]

When someone is attacked as a person without any argumentation being presented, it's ussually a sign that the person writing the personal attack can not refute the views of the one he's attacking.


I also doubt that you ever read some of his work or listened to him if you claim he doesn't make valid points and says everybody who disagrees with him is wrong. Dawkins stays cool and polite in the face of sometimes very abusive Christian extremists who yell the most insane things at him, and come up with the sillyiest claims that would leave many responding with just "Dude, get an education!".

Two things. First, I am most certainly not a Christian. I find the whole notion to be utterly ludicrous, and I actually agree with Dawkins' ideals. Second, I have in fact read The God Delusion and seen a handful of interviews with the guy. As I said previously, I fully agree with his ideals.

What I have a problem with is his presentation. He comes across as utterly devoted to his viewpoint and refuses to acknowledge even the possibility that he's incorrect. I don't have my copy of his book at hand, as I am at work, but I distinctly remember that he dismisses religion out of hand in a number of places there. He takes a hard-line stance on the matter, and it's fairly clear that he firmly believes his stance is the only correct one.

That kind of thinking is just as damaging as any religious nut's insistence on the same. It promotes dogmatic adherence to a fundamental belief.

Like I said, I actually do agree with his ideals. He just comes across as a complete twat. If he'd adjust his stance to be less "This is the way it is" and more "Here's my take on it, and here's my evidence to support it", I'd be far more supportive of him.

 

[staika]

Wow 8 pages and a full out flame war, Damn I hate religious flame wars they are the worst kind of Flame war.
Also how hasn't this thread been locked or thrown in the R&P section yet?

OT: I don't know the guy but from what I read about him in this thread I doubt I'd like him that much. I don't care what people believe in, I just hate it when either side tries to destroy the other.

 

[AnarchistFish]

Your evidence is so vague it's laughable.

So I didn't give an exact detail or quote therefore what I say is crap? I used to be a proper Christian, I know that what he said was irrelevant. He presented it as a fundamental belief of Christianity when it wasn't.

And it would make sense for him to criticize a pope considering the pope represents a huge section of Christianity.

To be honest, he doesn't. That's one of the problems with the vatican as an institution.

And criticizing the pope on matters of doctrine is quite relevant.

But it makes no sense. A pope accepted evolution as a valid theory, how does that make him a hypocrite? If anything it just makes the church look open minded whilst on the other side of the coin they can't win because whatever they'd say, people like Dawkins would criticise.

Besides, your word isn't good evidence. Actually quoting him would be.

So you basically take his word until there's evidence to the contrary? I can't give evidence saying "this is not a part of christianity" because it wouldn't be there.

Your word could easily be biased and not give a full representation.

How would I be biased? I'm not on either side. Besides, we're dealing in facts here.

His own words are much more likely to give a full representation of his own argument.

His argument was along the lines of "Christianity will be proven completely wrong once this belief is proved wrong". I don't see how I could misrepresent that.

He's pretty much the worst poster boy Atheism could have.

Dawkins just looks at evidence, and he gets angry when religion deludes people at offers nothing usefull to society.

I'd say it does offer something to society. It gives people morals and somewhere to fall back on, and provide charity to people.

Of course organised religion has a lot of flaws, I could name quite a few, but people often forget the good things.

I made no claims about Christians,

Yes you did. You presumed I was Christian just because I was arguing against Dawkins.

Another thing. You can't call something "reality" if it isn't proved. By that logic, you can't call god a reality but you can't call his non-existence a reality either.

 

[AnarchistFish]

Your evidence is so vague it's laughable.

So I didn't give an exact detail or quote therefore what I say is crap? I used to be a proper Christian, I know that what he said was irrelevant. He presented it as a fundamental belief of Christianity when it wasn't.

Therefore what you say should be treated as crap. There is no reason to trust you.

And it would make sense for him to criticize a pope considering the pope represents a huge section of Christianity.

To be honest, he doesn't. That's one of the problems with the vatican as an institution.

Yes, he does. Catholics are by far the largest denomination of Christianity.

And criticizing the pope on matters of doctrine is quite relevant.

But it makes no sense. A pope accepted evolution as a valid theory, how does that make him a hypocrite? If anything it just makes the church look open minded whilst on the other side of the coin they can't win because whatever they'd say, people like Dawkins would criticise.

I don't know how it does, maybe you should actually quote Dawkins argument instead of just whining about it?

Besides, your word isn't good evidence. Actually quoting him would be.

So you basically take his word until there's evidence to the contrary? I can't give evidence saying "this is not a part of christianity" because it wouldn't be there.

So basically you have a ridiculous "You either agree with me or Dawkins!" view"? Because no, I did not take his word for anything. I'm saying that you shouldn't be trusted to relay Dawkins' argument

Your word could easily be biased and not give a full representation.

How would I be biased? I'm not on either side. Besides, we're dealing in facts here.

Because you clearly are already. It doesn't matter if don't think you're 'on either side'. You clearly are on a side against Dawkins, even if it doesn't fit your simplistic view of this just being 'atheism vs religion' or whatever.

His own words are much more likely to give a full representation of his own argument.

His argument was along the lines of "Christianity will be proven completely wrong once this belief is proved wrong". I don't see how I could misrepresent that.

I see no reason to trust you to have interpreted it correctly.

I don't see the point in carrying if you don't trust it then. And you're using technicalities to misrepresent what I'm saying. Dawkins was the one making a statement, he should be the one to prove it. I shouldn't have to prove it wrong.

And you don't really understand Catholics. Sure, the pope leads them, but most Catholics aren't bothered by what people like the pope say or do. There's a much bigger divide between them than I think you realise.

 

[AnarchistFish]

Oh and what 'technicalities' are those, hmm? Or is this just you making complaints that have no merit because I pointed out why your argument sucks?

Dawkins should be the one to prove his argument, not me disproving it.

Considering the Pope's influence on their doctrine, and this being a matter of doctrine, you trying to separate them is rather laughable.

Don't tell me that me separating them is laughable. You're extremely close minded if you just look at it and presume what you think without actually looking into it was right. I was the one in the Catholic church and I can tell you that most people don't adhere to what the pope says, nor do they care or pay attention to it.

 

[Lavi]

Brilliant scientist. Needs to stay out of religion. As a religious studies major, it is painful to see Christianity, Islam, and Judaism shoved into... well, Christianity. His arguments are poor philosophically as expected, and I honestly shouldn't need to tell anyone why philosophy is the best to deal with the existence of metaphysical realities (G-d, in this case, is limiting the scope of discussion). For The G-d Delusion, the first half is decent, but afterwards might as well not even be read.

Not to mention if one is to speak of atheism, it would be best to speak of other religions though not really necessary in this case I suppose.

 

[AnarchistFish]

I can't be bothered with this anymore

 

[Vausch]

I love the guy. He's outspoken while remaining articulate, a great writer with some fun and informative books, has a great sense of humour (watch his reading of hate mail as he laughs at it) and is one of the better leaders of atheist progressive movements. I do think he tends to get a little on the smug side and might be pushing it a bit with the anti-religion but it's never been something that would make me go "Oh man, too far".